Consequentialism Scale Test

Understand how you weigh moral rules against outcomes in ethical dilemmas in about 2 minutes. Ten items separate rule rejection from happiness maximization for clear, nuanced insights.

Start Online Test

Questions: 102 minutes

Hi! My name is Freudly, i am an AI therapist, I will give you an interpretation of the test after you complete it.

08:30

October 2, 2025

October 2, 2025
Material has been updated

October 2, 2025
Material has been published

13,216 views

894 completions

750 likes

Verified by Daniel Hall

Psychologist with 25 years of experience

Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

example score

17/25

Deontological Beliefs (DB)

Measures how strongly a person prioritizes moral rules and duties when judging actions, independent of outcomes.

Low

Moderate

High

5 – 12: Low | 13 – 19: Moderate | 20 – 25: High

A score of 17 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a balanced tendency to consider moral rules while not treating them as absolute in every situation.

example score

15/25

Utilitarian Beliefs (UB)

This scale measures how strongly someone prioritizes outcomes and the greater good when judging what is morally right.

Rule-focused

Balanced

Utility-focused

5 – 11: Rule-focused | 12 – 18: Balanced | 19 – 25: Utility-focused

A score of 15 falls in the Balanced range, suggesting a moderate tendency to weigh overall consequences and collective benefit without relying on utility as the sole moral guide.

Start Online Test

just completed the test

DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Ethics and philosophy students

41%OF USERS

They take it to see whether their moral reasoning leans more toward strict principles or outcome-based thinking.

Researchers and survey designers

34%OF USERS

They use it to measure deontological and utilitarian tendencies separately in studies about judgment and decision-making.

Debaters and civic advocates

25%OF USERS

They take it to understand how they justify tough choices when discussing policy, justice, and real-world tradeoffs.

BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.

RESULTS YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE

Scale Results
— Explained Clearly

Your scores across each test scale are translated into plain, usable insights. You won’t just get numbers — you’ll learn how your results impact your daily life, emotional state, and overall well-being.

AI-Powered
Interpretation

You’ll receive a structured, clinically-grounded explanation. Our AI analyzes patterns and relationships between scales to provide a coherent interpretation, without exaggerated language.

Statistical
Comparison

See how your results compare to others. Anonymized platform data is used to create a percentile scale, which identifies whether your results are typical.

Practical
Recommendations

You’ll receive clear, actionable guidance tailored to your profile. These easy-to-implement suggestions focus on coping, self-regulation, and realistic next steps.

AI-Powered
Insights

Get insights on behavioral and thought patterns you might not notice on your own. By uncovering subtle connections between your responses, you’ll better understand what may be driving your current results.

Discuss with
an AI Therapist

Clarify, reflect, and explore your results right away. Talk through your experience, ask questions, and explore meanings in a calm, non-diagnostic dialogue.

Start Online Test

Used in 52+ countries

Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.

Deontological Beliefs (DB)

Average

15.2

Normal range

11.5 — 18.9

min.

max.

Majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear on the scale so you can see how you compare.

Utilitarian Beliefs (UB)

Average

12.7

Normal range

10 — 15.5

min.

max.

Majority

This curve shows how scores are typically distributed.
Once you complete the test, your result will appear on the scale so you can see how you compare.

Start Online Test

Featured On

CLEAR ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this questionnaire measure?

It measures two separate moral orientations: rejection of rigid moral rules and endorsement of maximizing overall well-being. Scores are reported for each dimension rather than as a single combined result.

How should items be answered?

Rate each statement based on the degree of agreement or disagreement, using the response options provided. Respond according to typical judgments, not exceptional cases.

How long does it take and how many items are included?

Completion time is about 2 minutes. The questionnaire includes 10 items.

Is there a right or wrong pattern of responses?

No; the items assess preferences and priorities in moral reasoning. Consistent responding is more important than any specific position.

How should results be interpreted?

Higher scores indicate stronger endorsement of the dimension measured by that section, while lower scores indicate weaker endorsement. Interpretation is descriptive and should be considered alongside context and other information.

WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

About This Assessment

Consequentialism Scale Test - Symptoms and Signs

moral

This measure is designed to assess individual differences in moral orientation when evaluating ethical dilemmas. The Consequentialism Scale provides a brief self-report profile of endorsement of outcome-focused versus rule-based moral considerations (Greene).

The instrument includes 10 items and typically requires about 2 minutes to complete. Respondents rate their agreement with statements reflecting utilitarian commitments (e.g., maximizing overall welfare) and deontological commitments (e.g., adherence to moral rules), which are scored as separable dimensions rather than a single continuum.

In research and applied settings, the Consequentialism Scale may be used to characterize moral judgment tendencies and to support discussion of how individuals weigh principles against consequences. Interpretation should be contextualized within the assessment purpose and not treated as a standalone indicator of clinical functioning.

Author: Joshua D. Greene

Literature: Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001.; Robinson, J. S. Development and validation of a scale to measure deontological and utilitarian beliefs. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Toronto. 2012.

Test Question Form